Kickstarter Is Not a Store

Share this post

It's hard to know how many people feel like they're shopping at a store when they're backing projects on Kickstarter, but we want to make sure that it's no one. Today we're introducing a number of changes to reinforce that Kickstarter isn’t a store — it’s a new way for creators and audiences to work together to make things. We’d like to walk you through these changes now.

Creators must talk about “Risks and Challenges”

Today we added a new section to the project page called "Risks and Challenges." All project creators are now required to answer the following question when creating their project:

“What are the risks and challenges this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?”

We added the "Risks and Challenges" section to reinforce that creators' projects are in development. Before backing a project, people can judge both the creator's ability to complete their project as promised and whether they feel the creator is being open and honest about the risks and challenges they face.

The new section will appear below the project description of projects that launch starting today.

New Hardware and Product Design Project Guidelines

The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and seductive to backers. Today we’re adding additional guidelines for Hardware and Product Design projects.

They are:

Product simulations are prohibited. Projects cannot simulate events to demonstrate what a product might do in the future. Products can only be shown performing actions that they’re able to perform in their current state of development.

Product renderings are prohibited. Product images must be photos of the prototype as it currently exists.

Products should be presented as they are. Over-promising leads to higher expectations for backers. The best rule of thumb: under-promise and over-deliver.

We've also added the following guideline for Hardware and Product Design projects:

Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited. Hardware and Product Design projects can only offer rewards in single quantities or a sensible set (some items only make sense as a pair or as a kit of several items, for instance). The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and offering multiple quantities feels premature, and can imply that products are shrink-wrapped and ready to ship.

These guidelines are effective for all Hardware and Product Design projects that launch starting today.

We hope these updates reinforce that Kickstarter isn't a traditional retail experience and underline the uniqueness of Kickstarter. Thanks for reading, and thanks as always for using Kickstarter.

Kickstarter announced that it's prohibiting product renderings in the Hardware and Product Design categories, but "rendering" can mean a lot of things. What does Kickstarter mean?

To clarify, we mean photorealistic renderings of a product concept. Technical drawings, CAD designs, sketches, and other parts of the design process will continue to be allowed. Seeing the guts of the creative process is important. We love that stuff. However renderings that could be mistaken for finished products are prohibited.

Do the new guidelines mean that Kickstarter will only accept Hardware and Product Design projects with finished products?

Not at all. We simply ask creators to share with backers exactly what’s been done so far, show how the product currently works, and explain how it will be completed. In short, we expect creators to show their work. Backers have shown that they're happy to get involved in projects that are in earlier stages when the creator is clear about the remaining work and their ability to complete it.

Do the new guidelines apply beyond Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products?

No. The new guidelines only apply to Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products. These guidelines do not apply to Design projects like the LowLine and +Pool or Hardware projects like Stompy: The Giant Rideable Walking Robot. Why? They aren’t developing new products that backers are expecting in their mailboxes.

How will Kickstarter know whether something is a simulation or rendering?

We may not know. We do only a quick review to make sure a project meets our guidelines. If an obvious simulation or photorealistic rendering is spotted during that review, that project will not be allowed to launch. If a simulation or photorealistic rendering is discovered after a project launches, that project will be canceled. Everyone should continue to use their best judgment when deciding whether or not to back a project.

Kickstarter announced that Hardware and Product Design rewards could only be offered in single quantities. What if my product works best as a pair or as a set of five?

As we noted in the announcement, sensible sets are fine. If your piece of hardware is best offered as a set of five, that's okay, however you couldn’t also offer it as a single piece. Creators will have to decide what works best for their project.

Final thoughts?

We created Kickstarter so more creative work could exist in the world, and last week's changes are in service of that mission. We're confident that these updates will lead to an even better Kickstarter. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, and thanks for being a part of it!

If the point is to make sure that the backers do not make decisions uninformed, why not take time to add a curated risk score. This way, the projects will be responsible in providing proper evidence about how far they are in production, and you can help us figure out if they are really on track. For instance, a project which can provide a list of parts, is probably further in the process than one which only has CAD sketches; but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be interested in backing the project in its infancy. It shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with an acceptable process of evaluation, and hire experts to do it. Heck, we pay a cut to you anyway, why not throw in a better service :-)

Terrible and shortsighted changes. The Kickstarter team clearly has not idea whatsoever of the costs involved in product design and manufacuring. How is a creator supposed to convey to backers what the finished product will look like BEFORE getting funding for expensive molds, etc.?
Please do not say rapid prototyping, because the level of finish and quality is NOWHERE NEAR that of an injection molded finalized product. I agree prototype images should be REQUIRED, but in ADDITION to renderings. Additionally, you could require renderings to be clearly marked as such.

Anything beyond that is utter nonsense.

The multiple item ban makes no sense either.

I honestly expect Kickstarter to backtrack very rapidly once they realize the hardware/design section has become a ghost town... this is purely a PR stunt for the benefit of techcrunch and the other tech blogs.

Add me to the list of project starters who think these changes are (mostly) terrible. Adding "risks & rewards" is a great idea. But no renderings? That's completely awful. It makes sense to require project starters to show real hardware/prototypes/something else "real", but renders are how you show your backers what the final product will look like! The whole reason project starters use kickstarter for hardware is that manufacturing is often infeasibly expensive without significant backer support. We can make one-off prototypes with 3D printers, laser cutters, or good old fashioned wood, but they will look *completely* different than, say, an injection molded product manufactured in large quantities, or a professionally CNCed metal model. For electronic projects, prototypes must often use different components - very few people have the ability to use BGAs or other high-density integrated circuits on their home-built boards, for example, and the assembly costs for these boards can be very expensive for a prototyper. You should allow us to show renderings along with real hardware, but not ban renderings all together! I can't emphasize how bad this is.

Slightly less bad is the limit on multiple quantities. Multiple-quantity reward levels allow us to raise more startup money from a single backer. Without this ability, projects that require large tooling costs or other one-time manufacturing setups will die. There simply won't be enough money to fund these projects. Anyone in business knows that one of the hardest parts is acquiring new customers. Once a person has decided to commit money to a project, it's much easier to raise more money by offering high reward levels. It is a *much* harder task to get more backers than it is to raise more money from a smaller quantity of backers.

Please reconsider your new rules. You are going to lose a significant number of hardware projects!!

I like the intent of most of these changes, but I feel the Risks section and disclaimers on any concept art or renders would be just as effective without limiting the creative and inventive nature of people who have a vision.

The "Risks and Challenges" is a good addition, I've seen a few projects where people seem to think Kickstarter is a "store" and asking where they can get a refund. It might also be useful to make it clear that despite your payment going through Amazon you're not buying from Amazon (and are not covered by their policies) - I've seen some people make that leap.

Prohibiting multiple quantities, is this a good idea? Especially as the rewards scale up on a project, it seems the only way for some rewards to scale upwards is to offer multiples of whatever the reward is if it's small-mid priced/sized.

Prohibiting product renderings/simulations, I can see where Kickstarter are wanting to go with this, but, I think in some cases the only way to demonstrate the boundaries of a project is with a rendering/simulation. If it's presented along with a the physical product to demonstrate where the funds will allow them to go - beyond that of what they have to show then maybe it needs to be allowed.

I do think that the philosophy of "under-promise and over-deliver" is better than the inverse. It is much better to surprise the backers than have them disappointed. As I think it's the initial backers who will carry the momentum of the product from backing through to completion and having the product in their hands and then going forth from there.

We have a project that was submitted BEFORE these new rules and are pending approval. So, does their NEW rule make our project that's PENDING something that can't be done?! We submitted the project before their announcement and now we're left hanging - we've build everything, EVERYTHING around our reward levels which are now, by the NEW rules, something we can't do. Seems to me that projects like ours should be grandfathered.

I'm sorry, but the idea that Kickstarter is not a store in any sense is idiotic in my opinion. Investors expect a return on investment- sometimes the projects fail and they lose the money invested, but when they succeed, there is an expected "reward".
Crowdfunding is simply decentralizing the standard VC model. If I pay money up-front to get someone's at-home t-shirt press running, it makes perfect sense for me to expect something in return.

Most of the projects I've seen with multiple-item reward tiers aren't making them cost the same as they would if you were to buy them from the team's Amazon page- you're backing at a higher level, and are simply receiving more of something as a result.
My vitriol may seem strange or misplaced, but I can't help but fear for gaming projects(what I usually back). As many others have stated, it is the prospect of multiple game keys/ items that gets groups (forums, gaming team sponsors, etc.) to back the higher-tiers of projects. Single people aren't getting 25 game keys- forums are, and then giving them out to their members.

Dear KICKSTARTER,
Your intentions are in the right place. However, respectfully, your strategy is flawed.
As a professional Industrial Designer with +25 years experience in product design and development, I can assure you (and reinforce the MANY comments above) that disallowing renders and other types of representations of the final intended product is NOT the way to go.
The power of Kickstarter is that EVERYONE can witness, and participate, in the behind-the-scenes-process of product development.
Renderings or other simulations are a fundamental TOOL in this process!
Any Designer will tell you: with any first-time client, a certain amount of education and expectation-management is required.
Kickstarter is new! Many people who pledge are "first-time clients" in effect. They need HELP to understand the RISKS, but ALSO THE POTENTIAL, of the project! Renderings can help with BOTH of these things.
It's ALL of our role to RESPONSIBLY manage expectations in order to help improve the overall quality of the service.
HOWEVER we don't have to eliminate one of the single most powerful tools we have at our disposal.
It would be better to:
a) require the "Risks and Challenges" assessment, as proposed.
b) require clear labeling of renders/simulations when/if the intended final result is represented.
c) require a cv or biography of the Project Team Leader - to help people evaluate the project's potential for success.
ALSO, I would suggest some further pro-activity on the side of Kickstarter:
d) redesign the KICKSTARTER HOME PAGE and PROJECT PAGE TEMPLATE to CLARIFY the RISKS involved!

Your efforts are well appreciated and needed: Yes, Kickstarter is NOT a store! What it IS is very new, and bound to cause some confusion.
Surely it will require some finesse, experimentation and iterative development going forward to understand how to communicate, and deliver, it's maximum potential in an effective way... Indeed: as with the projects themselves, we are ALL living the "product development cycle" of Kickstarter!!!

We don't have to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" to solve this problem.

Bravo Kickstarter. Despite the criticism in the comments I think many of these changes are long overdue. The changes should serve to highlight that "backers" are just that and the *main* reward is helping the project get built.

Risks/Challenges: This is way overdue - some projects have already been flagging these issues to moderate expectation but the addition of this section should really focus creators on evaluating their route to success.

Simulation/Renderings: I think some of the critics have to take a step back and think that under the current rules a creator can have a rendered product perform a simulation of something. Or in other words a fantasy performing a fantasy. Kickstarter is right to stamp this sort of thing out. Under the new rules - a product image is exactly that - what you have. A product description is what that product can do. Creators are still free to dream and backers are still entitled to believe them but those ramblings belong under another heading.

Multiple quantity offerings: I share Kickstarters view here. If you have a fully made and costed product that you're trying to find orders for then perhaps another website will work better for you. If you have a product that is unfinished and uncosted - then it is unreasonable for you to tout multiple quantities for purchase. It's harsh but it makes perfect sense.

As I read the comments, however, particularly bad experiences, I realized how good these new rules are.

I think most of the people protesting are missing the point: comparisons (for instance) to Nano Cache are inaccurate. As the commentator says, "they're an established machine shop", and they are selling something they've already made. The new prototype rules don't hurt them at all.

While one could argue that the multiple quantities rule does hurt them, I don't think that is as relevant: Kickstarter is not a store. If Nano Cache wants to sell direct to consumers an established product, there are many avenues for that. Kickstarter is not about running a store front, it is about asking investors to invest in a start-up.

These rules are good. There are a million ways to sell products direct to consumers, and Kickstarter is not one of those million solutions.

Eric Jennings: I feel for you, but I think the rule just demands that you be a little more creative in the rewards system.

You can do it!

While offering 10 of something is "easy" for you, that isn't the point--this is about funding innovative, new, high-concept creativity. You do your work a disservice by describing it as an easy automated system without thought.

I'm sure there are cast-offs in your production process--ones that fail--why not offer small boxes of those to higher end donors? Why not offer original sketches and prototypes?

I'm sure there is a wealth of ephemera in your work just as in any other: while you may not see it as exciting, for someone who is invested in your work, it would be.

Be bold, be creative, think outside of the box! Ask for more money if it isn't worth it to you to produce really original rewards. Take a chance! That is why there is kickstarter: if you can't raise the money, no one loses. Start over.

I am ok with this. I usually use the term invest when I talk to people about kick starting something anyways. It bothers me when people treat this as buying a product rather than investing in an idea/prototype/concept.

I think this policy change, while necessary and generally applauded, is too narrow. I've considered writing some software tools and funding them via Kickstarter but without the ability to demonstrate, via Photoshop, what this might look like, I'd be consigned to describing it, which is ridiculous.

2. Hardware Project Guidelines: No way!
If you want to transport a message to the backers: communicate to the Backers. Don't limit the projects
Requiring a functional prototype is one thing. Forbidding Renderings of the final Look/Design is a step too much. Because your D.I.Y. project would be done already in that case.
I would like to see the creators to be able to present at any stage of their project not when they are done. Esp. for small batch projects. Look at all the electronic D.I.Y. projects. I am happy to see a rendering of a final or semifinal layout. I don't need them to produce a prototype only to comply to kickstarter rules. Let them do it when they think it is neccessary.
For big projects it might have just been annoying to not use a rending. For smaller projects it is a killer.

3. Only 1 piece backing? Your are not serious.

Functional protoype + Rendering of Design forbidden = Project is already finished. You are more of a store than before!!! You are just not allowed to "buy" in quantities >1.

While I've never backed a technology product, I'm thrilled to see this. I'm sure this came about because of NPR's scrutiny of KS policies (story prompted by backers who gave $$ and received nothing). Proof that, indeed, journalism is a good thing, and needed.

I'd say that mock ups, renderings and any display of CONCEPT should be allowed, but be labeled as such. I also think that anyone with a project on Kickstarter should over demonstrate their ability to actually carry out their goals and objectives to build trust and confidence in the buyer/backer. I also think that should a company slip in its delivery date, that if they don't cure the problem in 30 days, they give individuals an option to get their money back. There needs to be some check and balance on the projects to keep things on a level playing field. Backers of these "early stage" companies know there is some risk here. Are there some bad apples out there? Yup. But there are many, many more good ones that are now being punished for the sins of the few.

I realize there have probablly been multiple projects that have pushed too far with the retail or product idea. But one that come to mind that are likely the reason for this are the Wormworld (second) Kickstarter which is 100% a store mode. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Kickstarter - if you are really serious about this, fewer rules, and more obvious changes to your site UI might work better. It is your site seeming like an "order form" that makes the payment seem more like pre-orders, not their product descriptions. Change the buttons to all say "donation to project" and prevent them from offering any quantites of their products in return and things will change much faster than this. Honestly, I'm surprised the current model isn't tax-evasion if they ever do ship anything. Do they pay sales tax on those "pre-order donation sales"?

The more I think about this - these are not solutions, they all have workarounds that creators and backers will figure out but will cause annoyance on both ends.

Renders/Sims will be posted on external sites, annoying for creators and backers and not addressing your issue.

Multiple items will be packed up in sets or fudged some other way behind the scenes like "add $20 to your pledge and tell us in the survey" sorts of things -- which can probably be manually monitored by Kickstarter, but in the end if a creator tells me to give him $20 extra and he gives me an extra product isn't that just between us? Kickstarter can't discern that I haven't just thrown in a charitable extra $20 and not change my pledge level.

Risks section -- this one is a step in the right direction but will still need to be taken with a grain of salt. What's your greatest weakness? Ya know, sometimes I just work *too* hard!

If your goal is truly to make sure people know this is not a store and you are pledging to help fund something that is NOT yet in existence ... then why not just a massive disclaimer on project and pledge pages stating these things? It seems you're really putting a burden on the most active creators and backers to quell some confusion by people who don't read.

Why not require images of the prototype and that IF renderings of the goal product exist have them CLEARLY LABELED as such? Its important to know what a developers vision for a finished product is as well as where it currently is in development...

I agree with many of the commenters here: The "Risks and challenges" section is a good change, but the rest is just rubbish.

Renders are a VERY IMPORTANT part of the prototyping process. Simulations are also very important when it comes to demonstrating how software is going to work - developing a simulation is also a VERY IMPORTANT part of the prototyping process. Every single UI-based application I've worked on in the real software industry has started with a simulation for user acceptance testing. This is a basic tenet of the software industry.

"No multiple items" is very heavy-handed, and also eliminates one of the things I've seen a lot of hardware projects do which is to have distributorship as a reward tier.

You need to help manage backers' expectations, NOT destroy what makes this community so great for product development.

I want renderings, and I want simulations. I want them *clearly* marked as such; ie, I do not want *ads*. But I want to get a feel for how an app, for example, might work in conjunction with hardware, even if the functionality is not there yet. *That is often what I am supporting*. I know where this is coming from; your most recent $1 million plus project, SmartThings, showed things that implied they had fully working prototypes at stages where they did not. They also paired, powerfully, with Instacube, which did not have a working prototype, and I know there were reacently issues with Equisio missing two shipping dates, and showing a non-working mock up. That said, I am an adult, and I can make decisions based on simulations marked clearly as such, and renderings on possibly product (indeed, SmartThings has CHANGED parts of their design based on intelligent input from knowledgeable users and developers who had suggestions about how they wanted to use things. This is *product development*. As investors, we are helping guide products that we want to market. And we do that with descriptions, renderings, mock ups of how user interface will be managed (ie, 'simulations') etc. You are hurting the *investors* more with the removal of that than you think.

I have to say this is going to make it difficult to use Kickstarter to develop electronics. I am fine with requiring working prototypes. The biggest risk I usually face is that not enough people will want whatever it is to meet the minimum production bar. Kickstarter is great for gauging interest and moving accordingly. For the $10-$20 electronics like Digispark, ExtraCore and Teensy not allowing multiple rewards is sort of a problem. Shipping is expensive. What if a backer lives in another country and wants to get together with some friends for a larger order to save shipping?

I don't have the capital to run off 1,000 copies of all my ideas and try to get them out to people. In fact one of the primary motivations to use Kickstarter is that it provides and audience.

I am going to have to rethink my plans to launch several new products on Kickstarter.

Accountability is always welcome, but presenting product development projects to stakeholders without renderings feels like stepping back into the stone ages. Please reconsider this approach. I fear this will stifle all the good that Kickstarter represents.

This Kickstarter corporate response to backer complaints is like making everyone wear knee pads because one kid skins his knee. And what's not been mentioned here is that every Kickstarter category should subscribe to the same rules. Can a playwrite sell multiple tickets to their event? And if a creative fails to deliver the great storybook or movie they pitched with some sort of "rendered" images, are they equally as "deceptive" as the hardware designers using 3D renderings? - a critical, required component of any professional funding pitch BTW. Blanket policies to cover the complaints of a few is a giant error and Kickstarter is pushing themselves onto the pending death trail that killed MySpace.

This policy shift is a clear statement from Kickstarter that they fail to understand what they've really created - an amazing pre-purchase storefront for emerging projects that wouldn't exist without the shared financial risk of early adopters. Risk = reward(s). A simple concept for most.

I think these changes are great.
I see a lot of people complaining because the changes will make it harder for Kickstarter to continue to serve as a low-overhead pre-order service, when that's not what it's supposed to be. (Reward descriptions like "order two now, save 25%" don't help.) Having used both Kickstarter and Indiegogo over the past couple of years, I can personally attest to Kickstarter having a better rep, but one that's suffered recently, as vendors (not artists/creators) are setting rewards up with percentage savings off the MSRP.
At a certain point, you're not "funding creativity," and being "rewarded." You're investing in something for the promise of getting a discounted product in return.
You can make the case that folks should be savvier about what the site is for (funding creativity, rather than a polished production process), but for KS to salvage what's left of their curatorial credibility, these changes are long overdue.
Again, KS is already the leader in this respect, but for it to retain the image of being about creativity rather than commerce, these are great steps.

If Kickstarter is not a store, why are you pushing project creators more toward pre-orders of already existing physical products, rather than embracing the fact that great products start with great ideas?

So for a game, such as one of several projects that have been successfully funded (e.g., http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/coolminiornot/relic-knights) does this mean that for stretch goals as well as the initial contents of a proposed project you CANNOT show art which will be used to create the product with the funding from the KS campaign? You must show the sculpts or models that will be used to make the final game pieces? Similarly for pen and paper role playing games, could initial sketches of the book art be allowed in the campaign or only final art that will be published in the finished product?

While having people think through the risks and challenges is a good idea, if an @#$%& is going to attempt a scam they'll just lie about those too. It is still up to the backers to use their own judgement to discern whether or not someone is full of it.

"Risks and Challenges"
Risk: Bears - There are still bears in this country. They could attack at any moment, delaying production.
My Qualification to Overcome: I have personally killed 3 bears with my bare hands and have hired a team of Bear Hunting Ninjas

Risk: I've never done anything like this before so I have no idea what the challenges are with this project.
My Qualification to Overcome: I'm a moderately good swimmer, punctual and most people like me. I really just want your money...

I have a project going on now (http://kck.st/SesRyD) and I've struggled with the limited quantities. The project is a new type of Christmas Card, so it has the potential to be something people buy in quantity. Originally, I tried to offer a pack of 30 for a super-backer, but I was limited to 10 by Kickstarter. One week after the project started I had people asking for larger quantities. In my case, this new rule limits support of crowd funding.

For renderings, my product is based largely in graphic design so to limit renderings hurts how well we are able to communicate what we are trying to do. In our video and in photos we show the prototype as it is now, but the reason we need Kickstarter funding is to create a printed final version. Like many projects on Kickstarter, without successful funding it will not exist.

As for the Risks and Challenges section, I think it is an excellent addition!

At risk of being redundant, I will also add my voice to the crowd. I have never launched a project, but I like to back them, and usually they are products. I like buying multiples if it is something I can get behind so that I can get one for me and one for my husband, for example, or to give as a gift. The "no multiples" rule sucks. I also do not care for the no rendering. Sure, put a disclaimer, but come on. I have experienced disappointment when a project took a really long time to deliver, but at least when it finally did, I got my two items that I had ordered/backed. And I knew full well what I was getting into, so I was not a vocal complainer.

Problem with KS, is that once the "Creator(s)" project is funded the pressure on them is off. a few days later they get the money from Amazon and again no pressure to finish the project. In the mean time all the people that believed in the project are left hanging because the project in now delayed. I'm not implying that manufacturing delay is not an issue here. Just saying that "Creator(s)" feel less pressure to complete the project. Some never even finish. In a way this is a scam. Think about it. I make a presentation on a project that every support like and believe. They "pledge" their money. Once the funding end and a few days later money was transferred to the "Creator(s)" account he or she may just walk away. So what's the repercussion to these "Creator(s)", none. I pledged to a project to this guy a year and a half ago and I'm still waiting for the reward. He barely make any updates and haven't heard from him in months. So I just lost my pledge and everyone who supported him. He walked away with over $100000. What a way to make money here? He totally conned everyone here. I wish I can do the same here but moral conscience will get in the way and knowing it's illegal. But somehow there's no policing here on KS and make "Creator(s)" accountable. I still support KS and like a lot of projects and ideas. I think Transparency is a good start but would love to see more regulations and accountability.

P.S. one solution is for KS to held the fund or distribute fund to "Creator(s)" in phases. Sort of like hiring a contractor for home remodeling. Give 33% at the start of project, another 33% when project moves ahead, and final 33% when project complete. This way the "Creator(s)" can't take the money and run. If the project doesn't complete at a set deadline 2 things can happen, pledgers can vote to extend the deadline or KS issue refund to all pledgers of the left over funds. It protects KS, Creator(s) and pledgers.

This is REALLY bad, because for things like the charms I've done to get made, I can NOT get a single item made to show it off. I have to use a digital image. It's impossible to get one made, because the company doesn't make just one. They take full orders only. Under these rules, I can no longer do it unless I get them all made, then post it to Kickstarter and TREAT IT AS A STORE?? Since they were already made!

I'm in the middle of making a video for Kickstarter showing how an iPad app I'm developing would function. So I guess this would run afoul of rule #1?

It seems like these new rules contradict the very nature of Kickstarter. You're erecting a catch-22 situation for many creators out there. I need to simulate the operation of an app to raise funding to complete the app. If we can only show the operational app, then the app would already be completed and we wouldn't need to raise funding through Kickstarter.

I think these rules are a rather draconian response to a problem that could be better handled by mandating the use of disclaimers.

Plus, it sounds like you're making these rules because of a minority of people who don't fully understand Kickstarter. So instead of making sure these people understand the risks, you're going to change your site to accommodate them? I think this is a bad idea.